Here's one more Favorite Posts filter. This time I'm collecting theology posts. I think some of these are among my all-time best.
Perseverance argues that Calvinists (and I suppose moderate Arminians) have been right to insist on a "once saved always saved view" but that Arminians have all along been right to insist that warnings to persevere are genuine and not hypothetical and that they're aimed at people in the church who, from their own perspective, may turn out not to have been Christians. How can this be? The post explains.
Is There Potentiality in God? argues for two claims that on the surface seem at odds with each other and then argues that, when properly construed, they're not at odds with each other at all. First, in one sense the only possible future outcomes are ones that God has agreed will happen. Second, in another sense there are real potentialities and possibilities that will never happen.
Limited Atonement explains a much-misunderstood (even by those who hold it) view within Calvinism. Ths issue is whether Christ's death is potentially for all but actual only for some or whether it was only ever intended for the elect. My answer is yes to both, and the post explains why. The result is that anyone who isn't a universalist believes in the biblical version of limited atonement, and some versions of limited atonement given by Calvinists actually contradict what the Bible says.
All Creation Groans looks at some consequences of the fall, some that really hit home, including some reflections on the spiritual significance of conditions one might describe as nature having gone wrong. I consider infertility, autism and related neurological disorders, and sexual abnormalities such as homosexuality and intersexuality.
Eschatology lists a whole bunch of things I consider fairly clear or well-supported within scripture related to end times and the various views on interpretation of passages on the end.
Open Theism collects some thoughts by other people, not me, on open theism, the view that God doesn't know the future because there's no future to be known. Most of what I would say is said there in better and shorter ways.
Update 4-24-05: Here are some more.
Inerrancy and Truth looks at inerrancy and infallibility with regard to scripture. One of my theses is that most critics of inerrancy don't even understand what the view affirms. In the process, I respond to a few common enough objections against the view that don't count against the view itself but are really directed at a straw man. A good deal of the ensuing debate has to do with what the word 'inerrancy' should mean and whether it's an accurate term. I don't think it's an inaccurate description, given what people generally mean by the word 'error'. Even if you did take it as an inaccurate as a description, I don't think it necessarily is a description. Terms to refer to views are no longer descriptions but names once they're used, and that fixes the reference as a name referring to the view the people who use the term hold, regardless of whether the name turns out to describe the view well if taken as a mere description.
Universal Salvation and Universal Damnation is a very short post about a philosophical argument for universalism about salvation based on assumptions about what mercy requires. I argue that a similar argument based on what justice requires will lead to universalism about damnation.
Romans 9:5 is a hotly contested verse, because one reading of it doesn't require Christ's divinity, but another reading does. Christ's Divinity in Romans 9:5 argue that the latter reading is more likely.
Romans 10, Inclusivism, and Universalism makes some important distinctions between various forms of universalism, defending one version held by Keith DeRose as not violating the Protestant principle of Solus Christus. I then argue that universalism is against the spirit of Romans 10. The conversation with Keith in the comments clarifies the only kind of universalism that I think can be maintained in light of the urgency of the gospel. It takes saying things most universalists don't say.